lancaster county prosperity index

Lancaster County

Building a Model of

Prosperity for the

21st Century

Sponsored by:

The Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry The Lancaster County Community Foundation

United Way of Lancaster County The County of Lancaster

Building A Prosperous Community

Sharing a vision of Lancaster County being “a model of prosperity for 21st

century America,” The Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry, the

Lancaster County Community Foundation, United Way of Lancaster County,

and the County of Lancaster formed a partnership to develop a program to

monitor how the county is doing in realizing this vision. The program

evolved into a prosperity indicators project called Building A Prosperous

Community.

The project is designed to…

• Provide a benchmark of the county’s current state

• Identify the areas that most deserve the community’s attention as

we work toward prosperity

• Monitor the progress that is made in achieving our vision for the

community.

This report presents the initial set of indicators. To put the findings in

perspective, indicators are shown for multiple years and, where appropriate,

comparisons are made to the state of Pennsylvania and adjacent counties.

The community and organizations are encouraged to use the report as the

basis for discussions on where we are, where we want to go, and how to get

there. It is anticipated that the findings will be the foundation for program

actions and policies designed to move Lancaster County closer to the goal of

being a model of prosperity.

We are excited to share our vision for Lancaster County with the community.

Tom Baldrige, The Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Sam Bressi, The Lancaster County Community Foundation

Patrick Jinks, United Way of Lancaster County

Commissioner Scott Martin, The County of Lancaster

2

Prosperity – A Multi-Dimensional Concept

Realizing that our organizations have a common vision for the community was the first and relatively

easy step. The next question presented more of a challenge. That question was “what indicators should

be used to measure and monitor the state of our prosperity?” To define these indicators, the partners

undertook a multi-stage process.

First, we had to decide how broad the definition of “prosperity” should be. We agreed the concept

involves more dimensions than just economic prosperity. After much discussion and research, six

dimensions of prosperity were identified. Taken together, these compose our Prosperity Index. The

dimensions are:

• Well Being of People

• Education

• Economic Engine

• Health & Safety

• Community & Culture

• Physical Environment

Individual Indicators

The selection of the individual indicators for each dimension of prosperity was guided by five criteria.

• Content validity – It is important that each dimension has indicators that cover as much of that

dimension as possible. There is a needed balance between the number of indicators and having a

comprehensive measure of a dimension.

• Trend analysis – This is the first of what will become an annual report. By tracking the indicators

over time, it will be possible to assess the extent to which the county is changing. To be able to do

this, it is critical that the same information is available for each indicator over time. Depending

upon the source of the data for an indicator, the time period will vary. For example, some measures

may not exist on an annual basis.

• Understandability – To be of maximum value, the measures in the report should be easily

understood by the entire community. While some esoteric measures may do a better job than

selected indicators, little is gained if persons do not understand what the indicator is measuring.

• Actionable – A desired outcome of Building A Prosperous Community is providing direction to

organizations and governments to take action in areas needing improvement. To enhance the

likelihood of this occurring, each indicator was reviewed to be certain it is amenable to change as

the result of organized efforts.

• Best practices – Indicator programs exist in many other communities. A review of what these other

communities are using for indicators offered some guidance to the selection of our indicators.

3

Comparisons Over Time and With Other Counties

This study constitutes a baseline which can be used to track future changes in the county. Where

possible, comparisons with previous years are also shown. This permits an historical examination of

how the county has changed.

It is always interesting to examine data for a county in comparison to other geographical entities.

Comparisons with other geographies can reveal how well we are doing relative to others. Where

possible, comparisons are made to the state of Pennsylvania and the surrounding counties of Berks,

Chester, Dauphin, Lebanon, and York. For the county comparisons, Lancaster County is given a rank

to indicate its position relative to the other counties. With six counties, the rank can range from 1 to 6.

The lower the rank, the better Lancaster County is compared to the other counties.

When comparisons are done, the uniqueness of Lancaster County needs to be recognized.

First, the population of Amish and Mennonites within the county has been estimated at 35,000. This

has an impact when discussing topics like educational attainment since formal education for these

groups terminates at the end of eighth grade. An adjustment is made for this in the report. However,

this can still have an effect on comparisons with other counties or the state.

Second, comparisons of income data must be done with the realization that the cost of living in

Lancaster County is lower than in places such as greater Philadelphia. It is estimated that a resident in

our county can earn about 16 percent less than someone in greater Philadelphia and still have the same

standard of living.

Indicator Status

In the summary at the end of the report, red and green arrows are used to show positive (green) or

negative (red) trends, and the direction of the arrow indicates either an upward or downward trend.

When a clear trend does not exist, a horizontal arrow is displayed.

It is expected that our conclusions will lead to community dialogue. This will expand the project from

the four partners to a community-wide enterprise.

Each year Building A Prosperous Community will be updated. The next set of indicators will be used

to assess the progress being made in achieving the goal of Lancaster County being “a model of

prosperity for 21st century America.”

4

Well Being of People Indicators Measure

Appeal of Lancaster County as a place to live

• Percentage change in the county population due to persons moving into the county

Life Satisfaction Index • Percent of people who are satisfied with their life

Real income • Comparison of annual change in median household income

compared to change in inflation (Consumer Price Index)

Relative affluence • Percentage of residents above poverty level

Housing affordability • Percentage of household income spent on housing costs

Teen pregnancy • Percentage of births to women under 18

Education Indicators Measure

School readiness • Percentage of children enrolled in pre-K publicly funded

programs; school readiness at local district level

Academic achievement • Percentage of students who score proficient/advanced on

PSSA math and reading tests (3rd, 8th, 11th grades)

High school graduation rate • 4 year cohort 2009-2010 graduation rate – school level

Postsecondary school plans • Percentage of high school graduates with plans for

postsecondary education

Educational attainment • Percentage of population with bachelor degrees or higher • Percentage of population with graduate or professional

degrees

The Indicators

The six dimensions and the indicators for each dimension are presented below.

Well Being of People

A prosperous community should offer all residents a basic quality of life. Residents should have the

financial resources to meet their families’ basic needs. Persons should live in an environment that

provides a sense of opportunity now and in the future. No one should feel deprived of the potential for

advancement and improvement. Affordable housing should be available to residents.

Education

Education continues to be one of the best avenues for an individual to have a good job and a decent

standard of living. Without the advantage of a good education, it is difficult to have any measure of

success in our society. It is critical that the importance of education is emphasized at an early age.

Research has shown that students who are below their reading level by the time they reach third grade

are significantly more likely than others to not graduate from high school. Unfortunately, parents who

are not educated are less likely to teach their children about the value of education. Children’s

educational attainment is closely related to their parents’ education level. At the community level, an

educated workforce is required to remain competitive.

5

Economic Indicators Measure

Unemployment rate • Percentage of civilian labor force that is unemployed

Business growth • Number of firms/business establishments

Industry mix • Business establishments by industry

Patents • Number of patents granted

Minority owned businesses • Percentage of all businesses and employer businesses owned by

blacks, Hispanics, and women

Building permits • Residential housing building permits

Health & Safety Indicators Measure

Access to health care • Health insurance coverage

Health status • Percentage of residents with good physical and mental health

Obesity • Percentage of obese adults and children

Low birth weight • Percentage of births under 2500 grams

Crime rates • Violent and property crime rates

Economic Engine

A healthy economy is a key driver of a prosperous community. Thriving business operations offer

residents opportunities for gainful employment. A diverse economy minimizes the effects on the

community when one industry experiences a downturn. An economically prosperous community

encourages business expansion, the creation of new businesses, and the attraction of businesses and

persons from outside the county.

Health & Safety

The concept of prosperity should encompass one’s health and safety. Persons should understand the

importance of making healthy decisions to be able to live life to its fullest. A prosperous community

should be a fit community. Finally, all residents should be able to live in a safe environment without

fear of being a victim of crime.

6

Community & Culture Indicators Measure

Voting • Percentage of registered voters • Percentage of registered voters who participated in the most

recent general elections

Volunteering • Percentage of residents who engaged in any type of

volunteering activity

Charitable giving • Charitable contributions as percentage of income

Arts participation and affordability

• Percentage of Lancaster County residents who visited Lancaster City for any arts, cultural, or historical activity

• Percentage residents rating this type of activity as being affordable

Population diversity • Percentage of different racial and ethnic groups living in the

county

Creative Class Index • Percent of occupations in creative occupations

Physical Environment Indicators Measure

Air quality • Percentage of days with unhealthy air quality

Water quality • Percentage of streams of low and high quality

Preserved space • Percentage of natural land preserved

Time spent commuting • Number of minutes required to get to work

Recycling • Tons recycled

Community & Culture

A strong community is dependent upon its residents being actively involved in the community. Civic

engagement is an indication that persons feel committed to the place where they live. Being involved

in the community not only benefits the community, it also benefits the individuals who are involved

by expanding their social networks and giving them intrinsic rewards.

A prosperous community should be able to offer its residents opportunities to experience the arts and

culture. As leisure time activities, these types of experiences enrich the population by expanding its

horizons.

Physical Environment

Increasingly, communities are recognizing and embracing the concept of sustainability of the physical

environment. A clean environment should be a goal for all communities. Activities and planning

should exist to preserve the physical environment for future generations.

7


8

2010 Census (n=519,445);

2008-2010 American Community Survey 3 yr. est.

% Population Change 2000 - 2010

Lancaster

County

Movers into

countyPennsylvania

Movers into

Pennsylvania

% 10.4% 4.3% 3.4% 2.3%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%Rank=4 out of 6 counties

Well-Being Index

Metropolitan area Well-Being

Index Score

Lancaster, PA 72.9

Charlottesville, VA 72.5

Ann Arbor, MI 71.9

Provo-Orem, UT 71.2

Boulder, CO 71.1

Honolulu, HI 70.7

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 70.6

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 70.6

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 70.5

Appleton, WI 70.4

2011 Gallup-Healthways Index Survey


Appeal of Lancaster County

A prosperous community should attract new

residents either through employment

opportunities or as a place from which to

commute. From 2000 to 2010, the population

of the county increased by 10.4 percent. In

comparison, the population of the entire state

grew by 3.4 percent. Of course, some growth

can be attributed to the birth rate of county

residents. This is not entirely the case.

From 2006 to 2008, the average annual general

fertility rate for the county (71.6 per 1000

women 15-44) was indeed higher than the state

(60.1). However, over the past three years, 4.3

percent of our current residents moved into the

county from another county or from out of

state. The percentage of persons moving into

Pennsylvania during the same time period was

2.3 percent.

Life Satisfaction

The 2011 Gallup-Healthways Well-Being

Index reported that, of the 190 Metropolitan

Statistical Areas in the United States surveyed,

Lancaster has the highest Well-Being Index.

The Well-Being Index is composed of six sub-

indices – life evaluation, emotional health,

physical health, healthy behavior, work

environment, and basic access to necessary

amenities.

Findings are based on telephone interviews

conducted with random samples of adults 18

and older.

9

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010PA

2010

Change in median HH

income-1.8% 5.6% 1.3% 5.8% -0.3% -7.1% -4.7%

Change in CPI 3.4% 3.2% 2.8% 3.8% -0.4% 1.6% 1.6%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey 1 yr. est.

Comparison Of Income To Inflation

Median HH income $49,282 $52,064 $52,764 $55,850 $55,673 $51,740 $49,288

Lancaster PA

2010 2011 2011

Overall Rank 15 1 31

Life Evaluation 57 25 40

Emotional Health 14 5 23

Physical Health 32 16 32

Healthy Behavior 53 66 28

Work Environment 31 2 35

Basic Access 6 3 14

Well-Being Rankings

2011 Gallup-Healthways Index Survey


Life Satisfaction Index

Lancaster’s rankings out of 190

Metropolitan Statistical Areas on the Well-

Being Index and its individual components

are shown in this table.

In comparison, the overall ranks for other

Pennsylvania MSAs included in the study

were York/Hanover – 120, Reading – 56,

and Harrisburg/Carlisle – 49.

Real Income

Increases in household income only tell part

of the story of economic well being. Each

year, the cost of goods and services changes

due to inflation or deflation. With inflation,

the same cart of groceries purchased last

year costs more to buy this year. Unless

income keeps pace with inflation, a

household can find itself slipping in buying

power.

This graph shows the percentage change in

median household income from year to year

going back to 2005. It also presents the

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for each of the

years. For a household to prosper, the

percentage increase in household income

should be the same or greater than the CPI.

As seen, that occurred in two of the six years

examined in the graph. Household income

was, on average, keeping up with inflation

until 2010. The 7.1 percent decrease in

median household income in

2010 had a significant negative

effect on households’ economic

well being.

This, of course, is a consequence

of the economy over the past several years.

Future studies will track this to see if real

income improves as the economy begins to

recover. 10


Relative Affluence

Part of our definition of well being is having

the financial resources to meet basic needs.

Living below the poverty level creates a situation

in which persons have a difficult time meeting their

needs. In 2010, the federal government defined

poverty as having a household income of $22,050

for a family of four. Nationwide, the poverty rate

in 2010 was 15.1 percent. This is the highest since

1993.

Since the emphasis is on prosperity, the graph

shows the percentage of residents whose income

is above the poverty level. The effects of the most

recent recession are seen in the decrease in this

percentage between 2000 and 2010. Even with this

decrease, the percentage is still higher than the state.

Of the six counties being compared, Lancaster

County has the third highest percentage of

Residents above poverty.

Housing Affordability

When housing costs

become excessive,

there is a strain on

funds for other

nondiscretionary

spending. The Census

Bureau reports that

housing expenditures

exceeding 30 percent

of household income

are an indicator of a

housing affordability

problem.

In 2010, a third of homeowners

with mortgages (34.3%) were spending this much on housing. Among renters, the percentage is even

higher. Over half of all renters in the county (51.5%) were spending 30 percent or more of their

household incomes on rent. Housing costs in 2010 are similar to Pennsylvania. Looking across the

years, the increase in housing costs as a percentage of income is quite visible. Only one county has

higher costs for both owners and renters than Lancaster County.

2000 Census; 2010 American Community Survey 1 yr. est.

2006-2010 American Community Survey 5 yr. est.

% Residents Above Poverty Level

2000 2006-2010 2010 PA 2010

Above 92.2% 90.3% 89.5% 86.6%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%Rank=3

Monthly owner costs as %

of household income with mortgage

Gross rent as %

of household income

2000 2005 2010 PA

2010

2000 2005 2010 PA

2010

Less 15% 21.3% 16.8%% 8.8% 12.6%

Less 20% 54.3% 38.7% 35.2% 37.4% 15-19.9% 17.4% 14.0% 11.8% 12.5%

20-24.9% 16.0% 19.0% 16.7% 16.7% 20-24.9% 15.7% 13.6% 15.0% 12.3%

25.0-29.9% 10.7% 13.7% 13.7% 12.7% 25-29.9% 11.3% 12.4% 12.9% 12.0%

30.0-34.9% 6.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.5% 30-34.9% 7.6% 9.8% 9.0% 8.7%

35.0%+ 12.7% 19.6% 25.6% 24.8% 35%+ 26.8% 33.4% 42.5% 41.9%

% Income Spent On Housing Costs

Rank=5 Rank=5

2000 Census; 2005 and 2010 American Community Survey 1 yr. est.

11

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PA

2011

% of all births 2.9% 2.4% 2.5% 2.6% 2.4% 2.8% 2.1% 2.7%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

% Births to Women Under 18

County Health Profiles, PA Dept. of Health

Rank=2


Teen Pregnancy

It is difficult to think of anything that can

limit the future opportunities of a young

person more than a teenage pregnancy.

Not only is the teen mother at a handicap,

so is the child. The social and economic

costs for the teen parents and their

children are substantial. While the

pregnancy rate has been dropping in the

United States over the past 20 years, there

is no clear pattern for the teen pregnancy

rate in the county. It varies from one year

to the next. The percentage for 2011 is the

lowest it has been over the seven years

presented in the graph.

Our teen pregnancy rate is lower than

Pennsylvania’s. It is worth noting the state

percentage also decreased from 2010

(3.0%) to 2011 (2.7%).

Of the six counties being ranked,

Lancaster County has the second

lowest teen birth rate.

12

Education

13

% Children Enrolled in Public Funded

Pre-K Programs

Head StartSchool

District Pre-KPre-K Counts

Total Public

Funded

Pre-K

2006-2007 6.1% 3.1% 9.2%

2007-2008 6.1% 3.1% 2.4% 11.6%

2008-2009 6.1% 2.9% 2.4% 11.4%

2009-2010 6.1% 2.7% 2.4% 11.2%

2010-2011 5.7% 2.5% 2.2% 10.3%

2010-2011 PA 10.7% 3.0% 3.8% 17.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%Rank=4

Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, Office of Child Development and

Early Learning, Kids Count Data Center

NA

Education

School Readiness

Having children be prepared for school

increases their likelihood of succeeding in their

early years. Research has found that children

not reading at their grade level by the time

they reach third grade are at greater risk of

dropping out of school later in life.

Quality pre-Kindergarten programs benefit

both the children and their families by

increasing the children’s readiness for school.

Looking at the percentage of 3 to 4 year olds

enrolled in a public funded pre-K

program, Lancaster County has a lower

percentage than the state as a whole.

Compared to its neighboring counties,

it ranks fourth out of six for 2010-2011.

Over the past five years, the percentage

of children in pre-K programs in the

County has been relatively steady.

School Readiness at District Level

The state measure of school readiness

presented above only shows children in

publicly funded pre-K programs. Another

measure of school readiness is the percentage

of children deemed to be ready for school as

determined by their school district. In

Lancaster County, each district develops its

own standards for readiness.

The table shows school readiness for ten of our

county’s districts. On the average, 74 percent

of our children across these districts are ready

for school.

Co

cali

co

Co

nest

og

a

Vall

ey

Do

neg

al

East

ern

Lan

cast

er C

o

Eli

zab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hrata

Hem

pfi

eld

Lam

pete

r-

Str

asb

urg

Peq

uea

Vall

ey

Warw

ick

83 67 80 45 65 89 80 81 64 85

Lancaster County School Districts

% Children Ready for School

14

Average of Districts Reporting: 74%

Education

Academic Achievement Levels – Math

It is predicted that the jobs

of the future will require

more education than ever

before. This, of course,

makes an educated

workforce more important

than ever. Young persons

without an adequate

education will be severely

limited in their job

opportunities. The state

No Child Left Behind

standards call for 78 percent

of our students to be

proficient or advanced in

math in 2011-2012. All but

three school districts have

achieved this goal.

All districts have improved achievement levels since 2006-2007.

For comparison purposes, the average performance of all students in the state is presented. The

majority of our school districts exceed the state achievement levels.

Academic Achievement Levels – Reading

The state goal for reading under

No Child Left Behind is to

have 81 percent of students

at the proficient level or

higher in 2011-2012. On

this measure, six districts

reached this goal. Another

one almost achieved it.

Twelve of the 16 districts

have improved scores since

2006-2007. The remaining

districts have had steady

scores over the past five

years.

Again, for comparison

purposes, the state average

is included. Most of our districts either come close to or do better than the statewide average.

See Appendix for breakdown of scores for 3rd, 8th and 11th grades.

% Students Scoring Advanced and

Proficient on State Test

% Students Scoring Advanced and

Proficient on State Test

PA

Co

cali

co

Co

lum

bia

Bo

ro

ug

h

Co

nest

og

a

Vall

ey

Do

neg

al

East

ern

Lan

cast

er C

o

Eli

zab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hrata

Hem

pfi

eld

Lam

pete

r-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

cast

er

Man

heim

Cen

tral

Man

heim

To

wn

ship

Pen

n

Man

or

Peq

uea

Vall

ey

So

lan

co

Warw

ick

Academic achievement scores - 2011-12 District Level PSSA

Target 78% Proficient/Advanced in math.

2011-12 75.6 83.6 67.5 85.7 78.5 80.3 80.4 85.1 87.1 89.2 56.7 83.6 86.8 83.7 75.6 83.4 83.4

2010-11 77.1 84.5 66.9 84.0 73.4 79.5 80.8 82.7 86.0 89.4 56.2 81.0 87.0 79.0 73.1 83.2 81.5

2009-10 76.3 84.9 66.3 83.2 75.5 80.7 81.6 81.6 84.9 89.0 54.8 81.6 86.7 77.8 74.1 81.3 82.5

2008-09 73.4 82.7 67.2 79.7 74.1 80.0 80.6 76.5 83.1 86.1 53.0 79.4 85.2 75.9 73.6 78.8 79.6

2007-08 71.5 81.5 69.3 79.2 67.7 80.2 78.7 79.3 82.9 87.1 54.5 76.0 85.2 78.9 73.9 78.3 79.8

2006-07 46.4 77.3 61.7 79.5 65.2 79.3 78.4 77.2 81.7 83.3 52.4 76.5 84.9 78.9 73.6 75.3 79.2

Pennsylvania Department of Education

PA

Co

cali

co

Co

lum

bia

Bo

ro

ug

h

Co

nest

og

a V

all

ey

Do

neg

al

East

ern

Lan

cast

er C

o

Eli

zab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hrata

Hem

pfi

eld

Lam

pete

r-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

cast

er

Man

heim

Cen

tral

Man

heim

To

wn

ship

Pen

n M

an

or

Peq

uea V

all

ey

So

lan

co

Warw

ick

Academic achievement scores - 2011-12 District Level PSSA

Targets 81% Proficient/Advanced in reading.

2011-12 72.0 81.6 56.2 80.6 70.7 75.8 73.2 77.4 84.7 87.6 48.0 78.0 82.4 77.9 73.1 82.0 82.1

2010-11 73.5 82.1 58.0 78.7 66.9 75.9 76.0 77.3 84.5 87.9 48.8 79.7 82.6 75.7 72.1 82.3 82.4

2009-10 72.0 78.5 62.9 74.9 68.0 73.9 75.5 73.8 82.2 84.9 48.3 76.2 81.9 74.4 71.4 78.1 81.0

2008-09 71.3 79.8 28.0 33.3 71.4 75.1 84.5 80.6 76.0 64.8 72.7 0.0 79.0 61.1 18.3 14.3 55.7

2007-08 69.8 78.1 60.2 75.4 68.9 77.2 76.3 76.2 82.3 84.3 48.0 73.3 82.6 74.1 71.5 76.8 78.7

2006-07 67.6 73.3 56.7 74.7 67.7 76.5 76.4 74.1 79.8 80.2 45.2 75.5 83.4 74.9 70.5 75.3 77.4


15

Education

High School Graduation Rate

A high school diploma is a prerequisite to any chance for a good job and a comfortable standard of living.

According to the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, only 69 percent of high school students

nationwide graduate in four years. The Pennsylvania Department of Education for the first time in 2009-

2010 calculated high school graduation using the 4 year cohort method recommended by No Child Left

Behind. This method takes into account students who enter and leave the county during their high school

years. At this time, findings are limited to the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Comparisons with

previous years would not be valid since the calculation of graduation rate changed.

As seen in the table, graduation rates vary notably across high schools. We have some high schools in which

nearly all students graduate in four years. There are a few in which high school graduation is the exception.

Fourteen of the 19 county high schools have graduation rates that exceed those for the state in 2010-2011.

With one exception, graduation rates have remained steady or increased across the two years. The

exception only had 26 students in the cohort of potential graduates.

PA

Co

ca

lic

o

Co

lum

bia

Bo

rou

gh

Co

ne

sto

ga

Va

lle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliza

be

thto

wn

Are

a

Ep

hra

ta

Are

a

He

mp

fie

ld

SD

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

SD

Lan

ca

ste

r SD

Ma

nh

eim

Ce

ntr

al

Ma

nh

eim

Tow

nsh

ip

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lle

y

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k

Co

ca

lico

SH

S

Co

lum

bia

JSH

S

Co

ne

sto

ga

Va

lley S

HS

Do

ne

ga

l SH

S

Ga

rde

n S

po

t

SH

S

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Are

a S

HS

Ep

hra

ta S

HS

Wa

sh.

Ed

’l

Ce

nte

r

He

mp

fie

ld

SH

S

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

SH

S

Bu

eh

rle

Alt

Ed

Sc

ho

ol

Mc

-Ca

ske

y

Ca

mp

us

Ph

oe

nix

Ac

ad

em

y

Ma

nh

eim

Ce

ntr

al

SH

S

Ma

nh

eim

Tow

nsh

ip H

S

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

HS

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley H

S

So

lan

co

HS

Wa

rwic

k S

HS

2010-11 82.6% 94.7% 74.7% 88.9% 93.6% 92.2% 95.2% 93.7% 38.5% 94.7% 93.5% 20.7% 74.7% 49.1% 94.2% 95.1% 91.7% 92.6% 87.6% 93.0%

2009-10 78.7% 95.9% 72.8% 86.9% 83.8% 95.8% 94.1% 87.2% 74.2% 92.5% 91.9% 6.8% 77.0% 40.9% 88.2% 95.2% 94.8% 92.9% 87.2% 92.3%

Pennsylvania Department of Education:

High school grads - 4 yr. cohort grad. rate 2009-2010

16

Education

Postsecondary Education Plans

For many jobs, a high school diploma is not enough. Hence, obtaining a high school diploma is only a

first step in ensuring someone has enough education to be able to compete in the job market.

Attracting new businesses to the county will be dependent to some degree on having a workforce that

is qualified to meet the demands of jobs in the 21st century.

The table shows the percentage of graduates who have plans to continue their education beyond high

school. Their plans could include college or technical school. As found with high school graduation,

the school districts have varied percentages of students planning to further their educations. Looking

at the individual districts, there are no clear patterns over time. Five of the sixteen districts have

percentages that are near or exceed the percentage for the state in 2010-2011.

PA

Co

ca

lic

o

Co

lum

bia

Bo

rou

gh

Co

ne

sto

ga

Va

lle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliza

be

thto

wn

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

Ce

ntr

al

Ma

nh

eim

Tow

nsh

ip

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lle

y

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k

2010-11 76.5% 57.1% 51.4% 68.6% 67.1% 60.7% 72.3% 69.3% 81.1% 79.3% 67.4% 86.3% 77.2% 73.5% 71.4% 56.7% 77.2%

2009-10 75.2% 67.3% 64.9% 73.3% 63.7% 60.7% 72.0% 66.8% 81.7% 75.1% 61.7% 69.4% 85.2% 73.0% 63.4% 70.2% 75.0%

2008-09 76.1% 55.5% 62.4% 84.1% 62.1% 57.2% 70.3% 65.9% 84.2% 77.6% 71.9% 58.0% 86.7% 70.3% 69.5% 71.7% 75.1%

2007-08 75.0% 67.3% 64.5% 77.1% 61.5% 60.8% 72.2% 64.5% 78.9% 75.6% 65.9% 53.6% 87.2% 71.2% 64.3% 57.9% 76.7%

2006-007 76.1% 63.4% 51.1% 76.9% 65.8% 62.1% 84.6% 48.2% 78.9% 76.9% 53.5% 56.9% 88.1% 74.7% 68.1% 66.9% 70.9%


% High School Graduates Total Postsec Bound – Graduates Public by School

17

% of population with

bachelor degrees or higher

25+ (ACS, 2010)

(12,226 masters, professional,

doctorate out of 326,234 25+

with Bachelor’s)

% of population with

graduate and professional

degrees 25+ (ACS 2010)

2010 American Community Survey; 2000 Census

2010 Adjusted takes into account the Old Order population of 35,000 with

50% being under 18 years of age.

17,500 was subtracted from the population number for 25+ and percentages

were recalculated (Younger Center for Anabaptist & Pietist Studies,

Elizabethtown College)

% of Population with

Bachelor’s Degrees or Higher

Bachelor degree or higherGraduate & professional

degrees

2000 20.5% 6.7%

2010 24.1% 8.6%

2010 Adjusted 25.4% 9.1%

PA 2010 27.1% 10.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Rank=3 Rank=3

Education

Educational Attainment

To be fully competitive in the

marketplace, higher education is

becoming increasingly necessary.

Education levels the playing field for

everyone. The Census Bureau has

reported that education levels had more

effect on earnings during 40 years in the

workforce than any other demographic

factor, such as gender or race.

Usually, educational attainment refers to

persons 25 and older since they are

mostly finished with their education by

that time. Nationwide, 29.6 percent of

women and 30.3 percent of men 25 and

older have at least a bachelor’s degree. In

Pennsylvania, that percentage is 27.1

percent for both sexes combined.

From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of

Lancaster County residents 25 and older

with a bachelor’s degree or a graduate or

professional degree increased. Despite

this, the county’s percentages are slightly

lower than the state’s.

The county ranks third out of six for the

percentage of residents with higher

education degrees.

A unique characteristic in Lancaster

County is the population of Amish and

Mennonites. Their formal education

stops at eighth grade. It is estimated that

there are 35,000 persons who are Amish

or Old Order Mennonites in the county.

Of that number, probably half are under

the age of 18. To produce a more

accurate measure of higher education

attainment, an adjustment was made that

removed half of the 35,000 from the base

number used to calculate the percentages

with higher education. The adjustments

presented in the graph are most likely

conservative since they use under 18

rather than under 25. 18

Economic Engine

19

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PA 2011

Unemployment 3.5% 3.5% 4.6% 7.7% 7.4% 7.0% 8.3%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

Economic Engine

Unemployment Rate

Employing the maximum number of

persons who want to work is core to a

prosperous community. The recession definitely

had an impact on the unemployment rate in

Lancaster County. During the past six years,

the unemployment rate reached a high of 7.7

percent from a low of 3.5 percent in 2006

and 2007. By September 2011, it decreased to

7.0 percent. This still represents 18,608 county

residents who would like to work but cannot

find a job.

The county’s unemployment rate is below

Pennsylvania’s 8.3 percent and the

United State’s 9.1 percent.

Lancaster County has the third

Highest unemployment rate of the

six counties.

% Labor Force Unemployed

n=18,608

Rank=3

Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Local area unemployment statistics civilian labor force & unemployment by

metropolitan area, seasonally adjusted – September (18,608 out of 264,372)

20

Economic Engine

Industry Mix and Number of Businesses (Non-Farm)

Economic cycles and their effects tend to vary by industry. Some industries are less affected by a bad

economy than others. Due to this, having a mix of industries becomes important to a community’s

economic health. This table shows the total number of businesses, the number in each industry, and

the percentage this represents of all businesses that have employees. The Census Bureau conducts

separate research for non-employer businesses.

Looking at the industry mix, little has changed over the four year time period shown. Retail (16.2%),

construction (12.9%), and businesses classified as “other services” (13.0%) have the greatest number

of businesses. As would be expected, the number of businesses in construction declined each year. In

the opposite direction, the number of businesses classified as accommodation and food services and

other services have been slowly increasing.

After decreasing from 2007 to 2009, the number of businesses in the county increased from 2009 to

2010.

The number of farms is presented in the Census of Agriculture conducted every five years by the

United States Department of Agriculture. The number of farms in Lancaster County has been steadily

growing as seen by these numbers: 1992 – 3,997; 1997 – 4,034; 2002 – 5,293, and 2007 – 5,462.

Total

Fo

rest

ry,

Fis

hin

g,

Hu

ntin

g,

&

Ag

ric

ultu

re S

up

po

rt

Min

ing

,

Qu

arr

yin

g,

& O

il &

Ga

s Extr

ac

tio

n

Utilit

ies

Co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Ma

nu

fac

turin

g

Wh

ole

sale

Tra

de

Re

tail

Tra

de

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n

& W

are

ho

usi

ng

Info

rma

tio

n

Fin

an

ce

& In

sura

nc

e

Re

al Est

ate

, R

en

tal,

& L

ea

sin

g

Pro

fess

ion

al,

Sc

ien

tific

, &

Tec

hn

ica

l Srv

s

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

of

Co

mp

an

ies

&

En

terp

rise

s

Ad

min

, Su

pp

ort

,

Wa

ste

Mn

gm

nt,

&

Re

me

dia

tio

n S

rvs

Ed

uc

atio

na

l Srv

s

He

alth

Ca

re &

So

cia

l A

ssis

tan

ce

Art

s, E

nte

rta

inm

en

t,

& R

ec

rea

tio

n

Ac

co

mm

od

atio

n &

Fo

od

Srv

s

Oth

er

Srv

s

(exc

ep

t p

ub

lic

ad

min

istr

atio

n)

2010 12,029 42 12 22 1,546 856 669 1,953 366 137 641 340 961 66 553 106 1,065 160 966 1,568

0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 12.9% 7.1% 5.6% 16.2% 3.0% 1.1% 5.3% 2.8% 8.0% 0.5% 4.6% 0.9% 8.9% 1.3% 8.0% 13.0%

2009 11,975 40 14 28 1,558 873 664 1,942 372 133 667 349 948 62 546 103 1,030 162 932 1,552

0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 13.0% 7.3% 5.5% 16.2% 3.1% 1.1% 5.6% 2.9% 7.9% 0.5% 4.6% 0.9% 8.6% 1.4% 7.8% 13.0%

2008 12,171 38 14 26 1,593 926 670 1,978 375 136 679 345 939 72 562 106 1,046 168 937 1,561

0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 13.1% 7.6% 5.5% 16.2% 3.1% 1.1% 5.6% 2.8% 7.7% 0.6% 4.6% 0.9% 8.6% 1.4% 7.7% 12.8%

2007 12,275 44 14 16 1,621 930 682 1,999 392 137 669 354 966 71 547 107 1,070 169 932 1,555

0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 13.2% 7.6% 5.6% 16.3% 3.2% 1.1% 5.5% 2.9% 7.9% 0.6% 4.5% 0.9% 8.7% 1.4% 7.6% 12.7%

County Business Patterns: Industry mix

Industry Mix by Number and Percent (Non-Farm)

21

2002 All

businesses

n=40,413

2007 All

businesses

n=46,957

2002

Employer

firms n=9,667

2007

Employer

firms n=9,816

Black 0.5% 1.6% 0.3% 0.7%

Hispanic 1.3% 1.9% 0.4% 0.9%

Women 27.4% 25.4% 10.9% 12.3%

Asian 1.5% 2.1% 1.1% 2.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Number of Businesses

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Patents 116 95 77 101 120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of Patents Granted

U.S. Patents and Trademark Office: Utility patent grants (location

determined by first person’s residence)

Rank=2

2002 and 2007 Economic Census

Economic Engine

Patents

Having a creative and inventive workforce is

an asset to the company fortunate enough to

have these employees and to the entire

community’s economy. One measure of

creativity is the granting of a patent for

someone’s invention. The United States

Patents and Trademark Office reports the

number of patents granted to persons

residing in a county. In 2010, the number of

patents granted to county residents was at a

high for the five years being examined.

There has been steady growth in the number

of patents granted since 2008.

Only one other county had more patents

granted in 2010 than Lancaster County.

Minority Owned Businesses

In a prosperous community, everyone should

have the opportunity to own a business. The

number of minority businesses is a measure

of the opportunities that exist for all. In the

Census Bureau’s Economic Census, a

distinction is made between all businesses

and employer firms. All businesses include

both single person enterprises and

establishments that have employees other

than the owner.

The Economic Census is conducted every

five years. This is why data is presented for

2002 and 2007.

With the exception of all businesses owned

by women, the percentage of businesses that

are minority owned increased from 2002 to

2007.

22

Census, Business & Industry: Building permits, New Privately

Owned Residential Housing Units Authorized by Building

Permits, Reported Only, Number of Buildings

Number of Residential Housing

Building Permits

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Permits 1,711 1,703 1,252 1,198 1,045 1,184 707

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Rank=1

Economic Engine

Residential Building Permits

A sign of a growing economy is new

building starts. This graph presents data on

the number of building permits for new

residential housing. The bursting of the

housing bubble is apparent in this graph.

From 2006 to 2007, the number of building

permits for new housing decreased by 26.5

percent. After a small rebound from 2009 to

2010, the number of residential housing

building permits dropped from 1,184 in

2010 to 707 in 2011.

The Lancaster Association of Realtors did

report that pending home sales increased by

28.9 percent in April, 2012 compared to a

year ago. Sales of existing homes could

positively affect housing starts.

The county ranks number one of the six

counties for residential housing building

permits.

23

Health & Safety

24

Census, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates;

2010 American Community Survey

% Residents With Health Insurance

Coverage (under 65)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 PA 2010

% 86.4% 87.3% 86.9% 86.8% 86.1% 86.7% 89.8%

84.0%

85.0%

86.0%

87.0%

88.0%

89.0%

90.0%

91.0%

n=68,547

County Health Rankings

Ranking of Health Outcomes

2010 2011 2012

Rank out of 67 8 7 9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Rank=6

Rank=2

Health & Safety

Access to Health Care

Given the cost of health care, it is easy to

imagine persons foregoing needed care

when they are lacking health insurance. This

can lead to persons resorting to the use of an

emergency department when their health

problems become acute. This drives up the

cost of health care for all of us.

After a steady decline from 2006 to 2009,

the percentage of county residents with

health insurance coverage increased from

2009 to 2010. The 2010 percentage is

slightly below the state.

Of the six counties being compared,

Lancaster County has the lowest percentage

of residents under 65 with health insurance

coverage.

Health Status

Starting in 2010, the University of

Wisconsin’s Population Health Institute

began comparing counties within each state

on health outcomes. These outcomes include

measures of mortality (premature deaths)

and morbidity (poor or fair health, poor

physical health days, poor mental health

days, low birth weight).

Out of the 67 Pennsylvania counties,

Lancaster County is among the top 10 for

the three years the program has been in

existence.

Its rank of ninth in 2012 is a slight decrease

from its seventh place position in 2011.

Compared to the other five surrounding

Pennsylvania counties, Lancaster County

has the second best health outcomes for

2012.

25

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10PA 2009-

2010

% children K-6 15.6% 14.2% 14.8% 15.4% 16.8%

% children 7-12 15.0% 15.2% 16.4% 18.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

PA Dept. of Health, Healthy Schools, BMI above 95th percentile of

children same age and sex

Obesity in Children

2005 2006 2007 2008 PA 2010 US 2010

% adults 24.9% 26.2% 27.4% 28.5% 28.6% 33.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Obesity in Adults

CDC, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: BMI 30+

Rank=2

Rank=3

Health & Safety

Obesity in Adults

In terms of weight, the world is getting larger.

Consequential to this is a worldwide increase in

diabetes. The increase in obesity applies to

Lancaster County residents as well. From 2005

to 2008, the percentage of adults in the county

whose Body Mass Index defines them as being

obese has increased steadily.

The county is comparable to Pennsylvania and

still behind the nation.

Of the six counties, Lancaster County has the

second highest percentage of obese adults.

Obesity in Children

Obesity is not limited to the adults

in our population. Starting in the 2005-2006

school year, BMI screenings were mandatory for

all students in K-4. This was expanded to K-8 in

2006-2007. In 2007-2008, all students in K-12

were included in the BMI screening.

The percentage of children in the county in K-6

and 7-12 who are classified as obese has been

about 15% since the screenings began.

However, this percentage has been inching

upward over the past three years.

In the 2009-2010 school year, the percentage of

obese children in the county was lower than in

the state.

Lancaster County has the third highest

percentage of children classified as obese in our

six county region.

26

County Health Profiles, PA Dept. of Health

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PA

2011

% of all births 6.3% 6.2% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.4% 6.9% 8.4%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

% Births Under 2500 Grams

Rank=2

Health & Safety

Low Birth Weight

Low birth weight can be the result of

several factors. Premature delivery or

undernourishment of the mother during

pregnancy are common causes of this.

The lack of proper nourishment could

be related to not receiving adequate

prenatal care. Whatever the cause, low

birth weight puts the child at risk.

The percentage of low birth weights out

of all births in the county has fluctuated

in the range of 6 to 7 percent over the

past seven years. In 2011, the

percentage returned to a high level of

6.9 percent.

This is lower than the percentage

for the state.

Lancaster County has the second

highest percentage of low weight births

of the six counties being ranked.

27

Pa State Police , Uniform Crime Reporting System: Index 1 Offenses

Violent Crime (rate per 100,000)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Lancaster Co. 199.2 197.0 185.4 167.9 182.1

Pennsylvania 421.5 408.1 405.3 385.8 364.6

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0Rank=4

Property Crime (Rate per 100,000)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Lancaster Co. 2200.8 2106.0 2069.3 1993.8 1857.8

Pennsylvania 2350.4 2307.1 2386.4 2231.1 2172.9

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

Pa State Police , Uniform Crime Reporting System: Index 1

Offenses

Rank=6

Health & Safety

Violent Crime Rate

In the ideal community, all residents should be

able to live without fear of being victimized by

a violent crime. Nationwide, the violent crime

rate has been trending downward. Lancaster

County has had the same experience as the

nation and the state. Until 2010, there has been

a steady decrease in the violent crime rate over

the time periods shown in the graph. This

includes the offenses of homicide, forcible

rape, aggravated assault, and robbery.

The increase from 2009 to 2010 may be due to

the low rate in 2009 being an anomaly.

The county’s violent crime rate is half of

state’s.

Lancaster County ranks fourth on

violent crime. Since the rankings are

based on positive outcomes, this means

three other counties have lower violent

crime rates.

Property Crime Rate

In addition to feeling safe, all residents should

not have to worry about losing property as a

result of a criminal act. Property crimes

include larceny, automobile theft, burglary, and

arson. The county has seen a decrease in the

property crime rate during the past five years.

With the recession, this is an interesting

finding. The state did have an increase in this

crime rate in 2008.

Like violent crime, Lancaster County’s

property crime rate is lower than the state’s.

However, the gap between the county and the

state is not as great as it is for violent crime.

The rank of sixth indicates that the county

has the highest property crime rate of the

six counties being compared.

28

Community & Culture

29

PA Manual

Voting

Lancaster Co. Voted PA Voted

2004 Pres. 70.7% 68.9%

2006 Senator 50.2% 49.8%

2008 Pres. 69.9% 68.4%

2010 Senator 47.2% 46.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

% Population Volunteering

Lancaster Co. PA United States

Below 32.0% 27.4% 26.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

United Way of Lancaster County, Volunteer Center;

volunteeringinamerica.gov/pa 2008-2010

Rank=2

Rank=4

Community & Culture

Voting

Within a democracy, voting is a privilege.

Through voting, citizens make their voices

heard. Of course, to vote, one must be

registered. In 2010, 81.1 percent of county

residents 18 and older were registered to vote.

This is lower than the percentage of registered

voters in the state (88.6%).

Being registered does not necessarily mean

you exercise your right to vote. The graph

shows the percentage of registered voters who

voted in the last four general elections.

Lancaster County has a slightly higher voter

turnout rate than the state.

The county is fourth in the percentage of

voters in the 2010 general election when

compared to the other five counties.

Volunteerism

A key component of social capital is persons

volunteering in the community. Volunteering

demonstrates a commitment to the greater

good of the community without any material

reward. The Volunteer Center of the United

Way reports that the average annual volunteer

rate of our county is 32.0 percent. We are a

civically engaged community.

The county’s average is greater than the state’s

or the nation’s. It is estimated that Lancaster’s

volunteers make an annual economic

contribution of $341.6 million.

Only one other county has a greater percentage

of residents volunteering.

30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 PA 2008

Percentage 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 1.6%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

National Center for Charitable Statistics

Charitable Contributions As Percentage of

Income

% Residents Visited Lancaster City for

Arts, Cultural, or Historical Activity

Rank=1

2009 2010 2011

Percentage 33% 41% 38%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

The Lancaster County Community Foundation

Community & Culture

Charitable Giving

Another component of social capital is

charitable giving within a community.

In 2008, county residents contributed 2.5

percent of their adjusted gross incomes to

charities.

This percentage shows little variation over

time.

Residents are considerably more generous

than the state in their charitable giving.

Lancaster County ranks number one out

of six in charitable contributions as a

percentage of income.

Cultural/Arts Participation

Residents participating in cultural activities

can be seen as a sign of a healthy

community. The measure presented here

takes this a step further by examining the

percentage of residents who visited Lancaster

City for any arts, cultural, or historical activity.

Having persons take advantage of these types

of venues in the city contributes to having a

vibrant Lancaster City.

Since 2009, the percentage of adult Lancaster

County residents engaging in one of these

activities in the city has increased. In fact, the

percentage for 2011 is also the target

established by The Lancaster County

Community Foundation for 2012.

31

2000, 2010 Census (based on one race divided by total population)

Population Diversity

2000 2010

White 91.5% 88.6%

Black 2.8% 3.7%

Asian 1.4% 1.9%

Other 4.3% 5.8%

Hispanic 5.7% 8.6%

Foreign Born 3.2% 4.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2009 2010 2011

Percentage 21% 18% 16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

The Lancaster County Community Foundation

% Residents Indicating Arts/Cultural

Activities Affordable

Community & Culture

Cultural/Arts Affordability

Being able to afford arts and cultural activities

can be a major influence on participation.

Since 2009, the percentage of county residents

who rate these activities as being affordable

has decreased. This is measured by ratings of 9

or 10 on a 10 point scale where 10 is

outstanding.

Population Diversity

Diversity in a population has the potential to

create a rich, vibrant community. Research has

found that a diverse population and a healthy

economy go together.

Since 2000, the county population has become

more diverse.

Percentages do not equal 100 since Hispanic

and foreign born can be any race.

32

1990 2000 2010

% of Creative Class 19.8% 19.4% 13.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

% Employment in Creative Occupations

Rank=3

Community & Culture

Creative Class Index

Richard Florida in The Rise of the Creative Class posits that there are occupations that are

instrumental to economic development in a region. Communities need to attract engineers, architects,

artists, and people in other creative occupations to complete in today’s economy. These occupations

are related to creative outcomes in the form of new ideas, new high tech businesses, and regional

growth. In response to the creative class idea, the Economic Research Service in the United States

Department of Agriculture defined the occupations that require “thinking creatively.”

In 2010, a total of 13.8% of the occupations in Lancaster County belong in the Creative Class.

This is a decrease from the nearly 20 percent of occupations that were in the Creative Class in 1990

and 2000.

Of the six counties being compared, Lancaster County had the third highest percentage of occupations

belonging to the creative class in 2010.

33


34

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Good 68.6% 76.2% 69.6% 78.1% 71.8% 66.0% 57.8%

Moderate 24.9% 20.3% 24.4% 18.3% 27.7% 29.6% 38.6%

Unhealthy/sensitive gps 6.0% 3.5% 6.0% 3.6% 0.1% 4.4% 3.6%

Unhealthy 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Air Quality Index Report

(% of days of different qualities)

% Days With Healthy Air Quality

Lancaster County Conservation District,

PA Campaign for Clean Water.org 2010

% Streams Impaired or Polluted

Impaired/PollutedExceptional

Value/High Quality

PA Exceptional

Value/High Quality

% 47% 20% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Air Quality

Reflecting our increased sensitivity

to the impact we all have on our

environment, sustainability has become

a focus of many communities. A major

component of a clean environment is

healthy air quality. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

reports the percentage of days each

year the air quality is either unhealthy

for groups especially sensitive to poor

quality air or unhealthy for all residents.

The percentage of days

classified as good have

been decreasing since

2008. However, it is

positive that there have

been no days classified

as unhealthy for all

residents since 2005.

Comparisons with other geographical areas

is not recommended by the EPA since the

location of air quality monitors varies.

Water Quality

Of the county’s 1,400 miles of streams, 47

percent (nearly 700 miles) are listed on

Pennsylvania’s polluted list. These streams

have some sort of pollution issue and

warrant attention.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation reports

that Lancaster County produces more

nitrogen from manure than any other

county in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

There are 300 miles of streams (20%) rated

as being either High Quality or Exceptional

Value.

The remaining 500 miles of streams are not

polluted but also are not excellent in terms

of water quality. 35

Lancaster County Conservancy; Lancaster County Planning Commission

Cumulative Acres of Land Conserved

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Acres 169 253 277 434 610 724 907 907 1436 1810 2194 2643 2718

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2000 2010 PA 2010

Minutes 21.7 22.2 25.9

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Number of Minutes Required To Get To Work

Rank=2

Mean travel time to work, 16+

(2000 Census; 2010 American Community Survey 1 yr. est.)


Open Space and Parks

Among the many unique features of

Lancaster County is the beautiful

countryside that we enjoy. As development

occurs, there may be concern that we are

losing our open space.

The Lancaster County Conservancy is

actively engaged in preserving our natural

lands. Since 2000, the Conservancy has

preserved 2,718 acres of natural land.

The county has nine parks and recreational

trails totaling over 1,860 acres. Plus, the

Susquehannock State Park over 224 acres.

The National Parks and Recreation

Association has a standard of 15 acres per

1000 residents of county and local

government owned parkland. Given our

population growth and limited public funding,

this has yet to be achieved.

Time Spent Commuting

A common complaint heard in the community

is the amount of traffic congestion that exists.

As the population grows, our transportation

infrastructure does not necessarily grow at the

same pace. One measure of congestion is time

spent commuting. Of course, other factors such

as the location of one’s job have an impact on

commuting time. In fact, the percentage of

employees who either work outside the county

or the state increased from 14.4 percent in

2000 to 17.1 percent in 2010.

Despite the growth that occurred in Lancaster

County and the increase in out-of-county

workers from 2000 to 2010, the time required

for commuting has only increased by 30

seconds. Residents throughout the state take

longer to get to work than we do in Lancaster

County.

Residents have the second shortest commute

time of the six counties. 36

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Tons 187222 189708 185062 185605 191813 202113

175000

180000

185000

190000

195000

200000

205000

Tons of Materials Recycled

Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, PA

Department of Environmental Protection

Rank=5


Recycling

One way to reduce our impact on the

environment is to recycle. In 2011, county

residents recycled 202,113 tons of material.

This is a notable increase over recycling

efforts in previous years.

The Lancaster County Solid Waste

Management Authority reports that a 40

percent recycling rate was achieved in 2011.

The county ranks fifth of the six counties

being compared. Ranking is done per capita

using 2010 population data.

37

Summary

38

Indicators of Well Being of People Rationale

Appeal of Lancaster County as a place to live • Population growth exceeds state

Life Satisfaction Index

• Number 1 rank in the nation

Real income

• Loss of real income past two years

Relative affluence

• Decrease since 2000

Housing affordability

• Insufficient Data

Teen pregnancy

• Lowest level since 2005

Education Indicators Rationale

School readiness

• Percentage enrolled in public funded pre-K steady since 2006-2007; insufficient data on local school readiness

Academic achievement- math • All 16 districts improved since 2006-2007

Academic achievement - reading • 12 of 16 districts improved since 2006-2007

High school graduation rate

• 12 of 19 high schools with rates 90% or higher

Postsecondary school plans

• No clear pattern over time in individual districts

Educational attainment • Increase in percentage with bachelor degree or higher

since 2000

Summary

The end goal of the indicators project is to provide information on the state of Lancaster County. As

we work towards being a model of a prosperous community in the 21st century, we will want to

examine the indicators and, where possible, draw conclusions about our progress. As mentioned in the

introduction, this report presents information on where we are presently. When the data was available,

it also provides a perspective over time and a comparison with surrounding counties.

Presented below is our assessment of the state of the Lancaster County based on the indicators. The

dashboard indicator that we use has three levels – improving (green arrow), getting worse (red arrow),

and no change or insufficient data to draw a conclusion (a black horizontal arrow). The dashboard

indicators are primarily based on trends within the county. When there is insufficient data to create a

trend, a comparison is made to the most appropriate measure.

39

Health & Safety Indicators Rationale

Access to health care • Percentage with health insurance coverage steady since 2005

Health status

• Slight decrease in rank since 2011

Obesity • Trending upward for children and adults

Low birth weight • Percentage has not decreased since 2005

Crime rates

• Steady decrease since 2006

Community & Culture Indicators Rationale

Voting • Lower percentage of registered voters than in state;

voting turnout comparable to state

Volunteering • While higher than state and nation, not enough data for

a county trend

Charitable giving • Remained flat for previous 5 years reported; higher than

state and adjacent counties

Cultural/arts participation

• Percentage increased since 2009

Cultural/arts affordability

• Decreased since 2009

Population diversity

• Increase in diversity since 2000

Creative Class Index

• Decrease in creative class occupations since 2000

Economic Indicators Rationale

Unemployment rate

• While still historically high, rate has gone down from 2010 to 2011

Business growth • Number of businesses decreased from 2007 to 2009; increased

from 2009 to 2010

Industry mix

• Mix of industries continues to be diverse

Patents

• Number of patents increased from 2008 to 2010

Minority owned businesses

• Increase in minority owned businesses

Building permits

• Downward trend since 2005

Summary

40


Indicators Rationale

Air quality • Percentage of days with good air quality has decreased

since 2008

Water quality

• Not enough data to discuss trend

Open space and parks

• Preserved natural lands increased since 2000

Time spent commuting • Small increase since 2000; shorter commuting time than

statewide;

Recycling

• Increased recycling since 2008

Summary

41

Appendix

42

Education

Academic Achievement Levels – 3rd Grade (Math)

Academic Achievement Levels – 3rd Grade (Reading)

PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k

Academic achievement scores – 2011-12 District Level PSSA Target 78% Proficient/Advanced in math

2011-2012 80.0 84.2 71.4 82.2 84.0 78.9 82.3 90.5 88.7 90.8 64.0 82.9 89.9 87.4 86.2 91.9 88.5

2010-2011 83.5 92.3 73.1 79.6 78.3 80.7 84.5 88.1 90.4 91.6 63.8 77.6 94.2 86.0 86.4 89.0 83.9

2009-2010 84.5 89.7 77.5 87.6 80.5 82.8 82.5 92.5 92.2 93.9 68.8 80.8 92.4 83.0 88.2 91.5 89.0

2008-2009 81.7 85.2 81.6 82.2 76.9 84.7 86.7 79.3 88.7 94.6 65.2 85.7 89.6 81.9 80.4 83.5 83.1

Pennsylvania Department of Education: Percentages of students scoring advanced and proficient on statewide standardized test

PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k

Academic achievement scores – 2011-12 District Level PSSA Target 81% Proficient/Advanced in reading

2011-2012 74.1 83.3 70.5 80.0 78.0 70.2 74.1 81.8 86.7 90.7 56.4 85.2 82.7 78.3 83.0 85.4 85.0

2010-2011 77.2 86.1 68.9 74.8 74.6 77.9 77.7 81.7 87.2 89.7 60.0 79.8 86.8 77.7 82.0 86.0 89.1

2009-2010 75.2 84.2 79.4 78.3 71.2 72.0 76.8 83.9 87.9 88.2 57.4 75.0 79.8 78.5 79.0 88.1 87.4

2008-2009 77.0 84.4 69.9 73.7 72.7 79.0 79.7 77.4 87.3 93.3 58.7 87.8 84.1 79.0 73.8 82.3 83.2


43

Education

Academic Achievement Levels – 8th Grade (Math)

Academic Achievement Levels – 8th Grade (Reading)

PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k


2011-2012 76.4 90.2 70.3 89.5 80.6 83.3 91.7 90.7 88.3 96.1 48.7 86.1 85.8 86.9 75.8 88.4 84.5

2010-2011 76.9 85.8 60.4 86.7 78.5 83.8 87.0 82.2 85.9 95.8 48.9 90.6 85.2 86.6 73.3 86.5 84.3

2009-2010 75.2 79.6 58.3 87.8 81.1 84.1 86.4 80.6 85.0 91.7 48.3 87.0 85.2 78.5 65.2 79.1 78.5

2008-2009 71.3 81.0 59.2 79.0 77.7 86.3 84.7 81.0 84.3 89.4 47.9 81.6 81.8 77.5 59.7 77.8 79.3


PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

-to

wn

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k


2011-2012 79.8 92.7 59.5 87.0 83.0 80.7 87.6 88.9 88.4 91.8 46.2 88.3 89.0 89.3 79.7 91.2 90.3

2010-2011 81.8 91.6 60.5 85.8 83.2 86.4 85.2 83.7 88.4 96.2 51.7 92.4 90.6 89.5 78.6 91.2 92.8

2009-2010 81.9 87.8 70.2 85.2 81.4 88.7 85.9 82.8 86.8 94.0 57.3 86.9 91.5 84.4 77.7 84.8 88.2

2008-2009 80.5 85.3 68.4 88.4 87.2 90.7 88.0 84.0 90.5 91.4 59.8 86.0 87.8 83.6 77.7 86.9 85.4


44

Education

Academic Achievement Levels – 11th Grade (Math)

Academic Achievement Levels – 11th Grade (Reading)

PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k


2011-2012 60.0 61.4 45.3 75.0 51.8 68.1 67.3 75.7 73.8 81.0 32.6 64.5 72.1 69.7 52.0 56.5 72.8

2010-2011 60.3 69.2 39.3 85.6 58.4 72.7 60.4 75.1 76.1 83.3 33.0 66.5 75.4 58.4 45.0 61.9 70.4

2009-2010 59.6 71.7 37.6 73.7 56.0 69.3 64.6 74.3 74.7 78.8 29.7 69.7 71.1 59.0 51.0 56.6 79.3

2008-2009 55.6 70.6 42.7 69.2 50.7 66.1 59.2 66.5 73.2 71.5 25.3 55.7 76.5 58.3 53.0 60.2 63.6


PA

Co

ca

lico

Co

lum

bia

B

oro

ug

h

Co

ne

sto

ga

V

alle

y

Do

ne

ga

l

Ea

ste

rn

Lan

ca

ste

r C

o

Eliz

ab

eth

tow

n

Ep

hra

ta

He

mp

fie

ld

Lam

pe

ter-

Str

asb

urg

Lan

ca

ste

r

Ma

nh

eim

C

en

tra

l

Ma

nh

eim

To

wn

ship

Pe

nn

Ma

no

r

Pe

qu

ea

Va

lley

So

lan

co

Wa

rwic

k


2011-2012 67.8 68.1 46.8 82.7 62.3 74.7 72.2 72.3 76.6 86.1 43.9 64.6 77.7 76.3 72.2 69.6 77.8

2010-2011 69.1 76.0 48.3 82.1 68.3 78.9 72.3 76.3 79.8 82.7 44.3 69.4 82.5 69.0 62.4 71.8 81.0

2009-2010 67.2 69.8 56.4 67.3 65.1 73.5 71.9 71.7 77.6 78.0 38.2 70.4 80.1 71.8 65.1 60.6 80.2

2008-2009 65.2 76.3 50.0 75.1 66.3 76.0 67.3 67.1 76.0 76.9 35.0 68.5 83.2 66.7 58.1 69.9 73.9


45

lancaster county prosperity index

Documents